McNairn v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 179,

• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Judge: Cameron, Vancise and Lane, JJ.A.
• Neutral Citation: 2004 SKCA 57
• Court: Court of Appeal (Saskatchewan)
• Date: 26 February 2004
• Citation: (2004), 249 Sask.R. 111 (CA),2004 SKCA 57,240 DLR (4th) 358,[2005] 3 WWR 457,[2004] SJ No 249 (QL),249 Sask R 111,240 D.L.R. (4th) 358,[2004] S.J. No 249 (QL),249 Sask.R. 111,(2004), 249 SaskR 111 (CA),249 SaskR 111

McNairn v. PPF (2004), 249 Sask.R. 111 (CA);

    325 W.A.C. 111

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2004] Sask.R. TBEd. MY.004

Rodney McNairn (appellant) v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 179 (respondent)

(No. 791; 2004 SKCA 57)

Indexed As: McNairn v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 179

Saskatchewan Court of Appeal

Cameron, Vancise and Lane, JJ.A.

April 19, 2004.

Summary:

A union member sued his union for damages for breach of contract, alleging that the union violated the rules governing the allocation of jobs among unemployed union members. The union applied for an order to strike out the statement of claim on the ground that the subject matter of the claim was governed by the Trade Union Act and therefore fell within the jurisdiction of the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board.

The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at [2003] Sask.R. Uned. 160, struck out the statement of claim. The court held that the dispute between the parties, in its essential character, was grounded in ss. 25.1 and 36.1 of the Trade Union Act and therefore fell within the jurisdiction of the Labour Relations Board. The union member appealed.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the Court of Queen's Bench had jurisdiction to entertain the statement of claim.

Labour Law - Topic 438

Labour relations boards and judicial review - Boards - Jurisdiction - Provincial boards - [See Labour Law - Topic 2402 ].

Labour Law - Topic 2402

Unions - Liability of unions - Actions against union - Jurisdiction - A union member sued his union for damages for breach of contract, alleging that the union violated the rules governing the allocation of jobs among unemployed union members - The Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench struck out the statement of claim - The court held that the dispute between the parties, in its essential character, was grounded in ss. 25.1 and 36.1 of the Trade Union Act and therefore fell within the jurisdiction of the Saskatchewan Labour Relations Board - Section 25.1 dealt with the right of employees to fair representation by the union - Section 36.1 dealt with, inter alia, the right of employees to the application of the principles of natural justice in respect of disputes between the employee and the union - The union member appealed - The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal allowed the appeal - The court held that the dispute, in its essential character, did not engage ss. 25.1 or 36.1 of the Act and the Court of Queen's Bench had jurisdiction to entertain the statement of claim.

Cases Noticed:

H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2003), 238 Sask.R. 167; 305 W.A.C. 167; 230 D.L.R.(4th) 735 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

Board v. Board, [1919] 2 W.W.R. 940; [1919] A.C. 956 (P.C.), affing. [1918] 2 W.W.R. 633 (Alta. C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Noranda Mines Ltd. v. R. and Labour Relations Board (Sask.), [1969] S.C.R. 898, refd to. [para. 25].

St. Anne Nackawic Pulp & Paper Co. v. Canadian Paper Workers Union, Local 219, [1986] 1 S.C.R. 704; 68 N.R. 112; 73 N.B.R.(2d) 236; 184 A.P.R. 236, refd to. [para. 25].

Gendron v. Supply and Services Union of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Local 50057 et al., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1298; 109 N.R. 321; 66 Man.R.(2d) 81, refd to. [para. 25].

Weber v. Ontario Hydro, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 929; 183 N.R. 241; 82 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 25].

Moldowan v. Saskatchewan Government Employees Union et al. (1995), 134 Sask.R. 210; 101 W.A.C. 210; 126 D.L.R.(4th) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Floyd v. University of Saskatchewan Faculty Association et al. (1996), 148 Sask.R. 315; 134 W.A.C. 315 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 26].

Berry et al. v. Pulley et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 493; 287 N.R. 303; 158 O.A.C. 329, refd to. [para. 29].

Hornak v. Paterson (1966), 58 D.L.R.(2d) 175 (B.C.C.A.), refd to. [para. 29].

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 31].

Lien, Re, [2001] S.L.R.B.D. No. 39 (Sask. L.R.B.), refd to. [para. 33].

Statutes Noticed:

Trade Union Act, R.S.S. 1978, c. T-17, sect. 25.1 [para. 32]; sect. 36.1(1) [para. 36].

Counsel:

Lawrence F. Seiferling, Q.C., for the appellant;

Rick A. Engel, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on February 26, 2004, before Cameron, Vancise and Lane, JJ.A., of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Cameron, J.A., on April 19, 2004.